Ship of Fools: Comparing racism and homophobic is offensive?

Thread: Comparing racism and homophobic is offensive? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028647

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I'm sure the Fast food for Jesus thread will end up in DH eventually but I have to take issue with a comment:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Of course not. It doesn't affect them. People often don't see things as having the same importance and gravity when it doesn't affect them. Also there is still quite a bit of ignorance and misinformation in churches about the nature of sexual orientation and identity, so that isn't surprising either. What's your point?
My point is that your over-simplistic, crass and well-poisoning attempt to make the Chick-fil-A chief exec sound morally equivalent to a racist is not a comparison that a huge number of people who actually have to deal with racism would accept. Trying to bootstrap the struggle to redefine marriage to the battles of desegregation of the past is disrespectful to those people, much as it may win cheap points.

Why shouldn't I consider someone who wants to bar gay people from getting married equivalent to a racist? If someone said "I don't have any problem with Black people, but I don't want one living in my neighbourhood or marrying my daughter" they'd be called racist.

I would consider anyone who tried to deny people equality on the basis of their sexual orientation/identity as equivalent to racists because they are singling out otherwise law abiding harmless people out for different treatment based on a particular attribute. And I would advocate that this kind of behaviour become as stigmatized as racism is.

Are homophobia and racism equivalent or not?

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

They're certainly both discriminatory attitudes, and I would take the view that both "states" (for want of a better word) are ones born into, so therefore they are equivalent.

Some of course will dispute that one can be born LGB or T, and will I daresay argue against them being equivalent.

Some consider marriage to be an institution of domination and therefore are against gay people entering into what they see to be a dodgy situation, and would not see themselves as being homophobic. There it could be argued that a denial of a right being offered to people due to how they were born is nevertheless homophobic.

To come back to my first statement, it could be argued that homophobia is not equivalent to racism due to the (albeit unknown) difference in victims of both forms of prejudice. One could counter there by saying that numbers should not be compared, as any one death is in itself a bad thing.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I think they're both bad. However, my half-Samoan cousins have experienced far more racial discrimination than I have homophobic discrimination, because they are visibly brown.

I'm completely out, but I present as a very middle-class, educated white woman. People react to me (except in the church) as someone who has status. My cousins are equally educated and middle class, but I know at least one of them has had a completely awful time in her chosen profession (Police) because of ongoing racism (and sexism). Because she's who she is (tough and disciplined) she's rising up the ranks, but it has been extremely challenging for her.

I think racism has a wider impact than homophobia, not just because of the sheer weight of numbers, but because of the history of considering non-white people to be lesser beings. Racism is having an ongoing effect on whole populations - I look at my social work caseload and I see it loud and clear.

And yes, there are those that would consider me to be a lesser being too, but I, and most of the lesbian and gay people I know, have the wherewithall to ignore that. If you're one of a family who has struggled for generations because of your skin colour, you probably don't, and the attitudes of government, social services and the rest of the citizenry are often set up to reinforce it.

I have never been comfortable with the comparison of racism and homophobia, probably because the vast majority of lesbians and gay men in NZ are relatively comfortably situated, where many Maori and Pasifika people aren't. I think on the whole, us queers are relatively privileged (I speak only from my experience in NZ, where we are protected by law).

But then my personal list of what's worst starts with sex discrimination... which has a long way to go in many parts of the world.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Are homophobia and racism equivalent or not?

Define "homophobia" and "racism".

If, by those terms you mean hatred or contempt for people who are in some way different, then yes, they are exact moral equivalents. But there are reasons for having negative opinions about homosexuality that don't have anything to do with hatred and contempt, and that's much rarer in the case of racism, because there's a more obvious distinction possible between person and behaviour when considering sexual orientation, than there is with race.

I don't think that makes discrimination against gay people any more justified, nor any less injurious. It strikes me as exactly as offensive to say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married as it would be to say that black people shouldn't be allowed to get married. But I also don't think that many of the opponents of gay marriage see that. They genuinely don't think that they are saying anything so hurtful and unfair. Which I think is a failure of empathy, and a serious one, but not at all morally equivalent to actual hatred.

You can tell the empathy-deficient on the anti- side by the way they talk about "re-defining" marriage. It would be clear to anyone who had sat down and thought seriously about why their gay opponents want to call their legal partnerships 'marriage' is that this can only be because they want to do exactly the same thing when they are in love as straight people do. That is pretty much the whole point. No one on the pro- side wants some re-defined institution of New Marriage which the queers can do, they want recognition that the love and commitment and exchange of promises between gay people rightly belongs to the human tradition of marriage*. To insist on framing the debate in terms of 'redefinition' is a bull-headed refusal to look at the issue in the way that the people most affected by it see things.

The equivalent of those people on racial issues isn't the BNP or KKK, though. It's that berk of a pastor in Mississippi being discussed in Hell, who moved the venue of the black couple's wedding. He seems not personally to be a racist (in the usual sense of that word) but, being faced with two conflicting demands from his flock ('We'd like to get married' v. 'We don't marry blacks in this church') he came up with a clever compromise: he'd conduct the wedding elsewhere. The couple marry, the bigots aren't offended, and everyone gets what they want - an ideal solution to anyone who lacks the basic empathy to consider for five minutes how horrible it would feel to be told that you can't marry in your home church because of the colour of your skin.

He reminds me a lot of the people who say "you've got civil partnerships, that gives you all of the rights, what else could you possibly want?". It makes a certain amount of sense - the gays get their legal protection, the bigots don't have to be offended. It must look like the ideal solution to anyone who lacks the basic empathy to consider for five minutes how horrible it would feel to be told that you can't ever marry the person you love in the same way that almost all your family and friends expect to, because the person you love is someone of your own sex.

It would, however, be almost as insensitive to label all those to whom it has not occurred to try to understand why gay people might want to marry as homophobes, or equivalent to racists. I think they are stupidly and obnoxiously wrong to support legal discrimination against anyone, but I also think that many of them really do have no idea that that is what they are doing, because it hasn't occurred to them to see the issue from the other side.

(*There's an almost exact equivalent here to OoW. No one on the pro-side wanted to re-define some new priesthood-for-girls. They wanted 'priest' to have exactly the same (wide) range of meanings it always had, but recognition that whatever a priest was, a woman could be one. No SSM proponent wants a new 'marriage-for-queers'. They want marriage to have the same wide range of meanings it always had, but recognition that for at least one those meanings ('civil marriage'), same sex couples can do what straights do).

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Some of course will dispute that one can be born LGB or T, and will I daresay argue against them being equivalent.

For me that is the clincher.

There is still no scientific consensus on the degree our genes play in sexual orientation. However, I've never come across anyone arguing that every single LGBT has their orientation 100% because of their birth.

Race is 100% a product of birth. If sexual orientation is not then the two things are not directly comparable.

There are similarities, sure. So I personally was not offended by your comparison. But I would say that racism and homophobia cannot be directly equivalent.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

FWIW, JohnnyS, I agree, and furthermore, when it comes to personal conduct, are we not more than our genes?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

It would, however, be almost as insensitive to label all those to whom it has not occurred to try to understand why gay people might want to marry as homophobes, or equivalent to racists. I think they are stupidly and obnoxiously wrong to support legal discrimination against anyone, but I also think that many of them really do have no idea that that is what they are doing, because it hasn't occurred to them to see the issue from the other side.

This was once true of many racists. My MIL was very racist, but it was through ignorance - not deliberate hatred. Once she became more educated she lost her 'racism' entirely.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
(*There's an almost exact equivalent here to OoW. No one on the pro-side wanted to re-define some new priesthood-for-girls. They wanted 'priest' to have exactly the same (wide) range of meanings it always had, but recognition that whatever a priest was, a woman could be one. No SSM proponent wants a new 'marriage-for-queers'. They want marriage to have the same wide range of meanings it always had, but recognition that for at least one those meanings ('civil marriage'), same sex couples can do what straights do).

This a good point - I'd not quite thought of the gay marriage argument as 'Yes, we want to extend what marriage means; have you got a problem with that?'

In any case, there is no static, set-for-all-time definition of marriage, is there? You've got the polygamy issue, the minimum age for marriage varies across cultures and eras, and if anyone tries to appeal to the 'Biblical definition of marriage', well wasn't that mono-cultural in Old Testament times? I thought Israelites were forbidden from marrying non-Israelites - let's bring that back, shall we; recovering the Biblical definition of marriage!

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
because there's a more obvious distinction possible between person and behaviour when considering sexual orientation, than there is with race.

Except that this distinction is meaningless in the public arena.

Homophobia isn't triggered at the public display of gay sex, but, almost without exception, is triggered when someone merely self-identifies as gay or "acts" gay in mannerisms (which leads to another question over whether masculinity or effeminacy is chosen or genetic in nature - probably best left for another thread, though.)

So this phobia is by nature against the person, not the activity. I don't have to be actively having gay sex to be on the receiving end of prejudice and hate. I just have to identify as someone who is same-gender oriented, whether I choose to act on it or not. So this distinction is invalid.

However, I would agree that sexual orientation isn't visible like race or gender, so perhaps anti-Semitism would be a better analogy than racism, since it's generally not obvious whether someone is Jewish or not.

[ 03. August 2012, 14:54: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
IWhy shouldn't I consider someone who wants to bar gay people from getting married equivalent to a racist? I

Because they are completely different in scale and seriousness. And they are not the same sort of thing at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Race is 100% a product of birth.

No its not. Its socially defined. It is not a biological category.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Because they are completely different in scale and seriousness. And they are not the same sort of thing at all.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Care to unpack further? How is racism more "serious" than homophobia?

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

When you're on the receiving end of a hate crime or job discrimination, it really doesn't matter very much whether it is because of racism, sexism, or homophobia. The results to the victim will be much the same regardless of the perpetrator's precise motivation.

Are they exactly the same? No...but comparing them in the manner that most people do shouldn't be offensive.

There is one group of people who will always find it offensive--those who recognize racism as evil but think condemnation of homosexuality is not. For them, comparing the two will always be an improper metaphor at best, and likely to be offensive because it will remind them that there are others who think their attitudes are evil. I can live with the fact that I am likely to offend them, and I'm not sorry.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Just two quick comments. I've always been offended by the term "homophobia." When I try to climb around to the front side of my house, I become irrationally afraid and I cannot continue, as it is too high for me. That, I believe, is called "acrophobia." When I am around a person who practices homosexuality, I am not afraid or repulsed at all. Yet, if I think that homosexuality is wrong, I am branded a "homophobe". To me it is simply a propaganda term to imply that there is something wrong with the person who thinks that homosexual practices are wrong.

Second: Considering homosexual acts to be does not mean condemnation of homosexuals. Only one is our Judge. If a Christian does not love his neighbor as himself, and understand that he is as great, or greater sinner as his neighbor, He is in violation of the second great commandment.

There have been excesses at both extreme positions, and that's sad. But if I never heard "Homophobia" again, it'd be too soon. Same with other loaded terms like "Pro-choice."

A perfect "Dead Horses" post. I'll bet both points have been made dozens of times.

God Help us,

Tom

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Considering homosexual acts to be [wrong?] does not mean condemnation of homosexuals. Only one is our Judge. If a Christian does not love his neighbor as himself, and understand that he is as great, or greater sinner as his neighbor, He is in violation of the second great commandment.

What a nice little world you live in! I almost wish I could share it. However, I live in a country where I can be fired for being gay--and many (most?) of the people who would really do that call themselves Bible-believing Christians.

I live in a country where I could lose housing (if I were renting) for being gay. Many (most?) of the landlords who would actually do that call themselves Bible-believing Christians.

I live in a country where, after 11 years with my partner, my first thought when I call for an ambulance is to grab the Medical Power of Attorney--especially if we are likely to arrive at a hospital run by a religious group.

I live in a country where civilly married straight people have some 1100 federally-guaranteed rights and privileges regarding inheritance, etc. that are not available to me.

I live in a country where every time there is any attempt to provide anything approaching a civil marriage or even a domestic partnership arrangement for gay couples, the loudest voices and the greatest contributions to squash it come from Churches--who, like yourself, would say they are not condemning homosexuals, just homosexual acts.

That's why gay people laugh when they hear that crap about loving the sinner and hating the sin--they've felt the love, all right.

So it is likely that you will continue to be labelled a homophobe, because that seems to be the company you keep, and the company in which you seem comfortable.

Now of course, it's quite possible I've misjudged you, and I'm not being fair--it's possible you work quite hard to insure gay people are given the secular, civil rights that everyone else has--the simple inheritance rights that a black man married to a black woman could take for granted even in Mississippi in 1957. You haven't given that impression on the Ship, though.

However, as someone who is rather consistently misjudged or categorized purely on the basis of being gay, I can assure you there are far worse things than being misjudged.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
When I am around a person who practices homosexuality, I am not afraid or repulsed at all. Yet, if I think that homosexuality is wrong, I am branded a "homophobe".

I think the word 'homophobia' is more commonly used to describe the fight against equal rights (including with reference to marriage) for gay people. So it's one thing to say you think homosexual acts are against God's will, but quite another to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

That doesn't address the fact that it is a hyperbolic and pejorative word, unfortunately. As I said, it implies that there is something wrong with the person, not their stance. I'm not well-versed on these things, but I think the formal term would be an "ad-hominem" attack.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I'm sorry, Organ Builder, I scrolled to the bottom and didn't see your post. I can assure you that I do not live in a "nice little world." I see the dread effects of sin everywhere, most notably in my own life.

It's very difficult to develop an understanding of one another in on-line settings.

Blessings,

Tom

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
That doesn't address the fact that it is a hyperbolic and pejorative word, unfortunately.

Wikipedia has a list of a few alternatives that have been proposed over the years--I don't know that you would like any of them any better. The word does not seem to have been initially coined by gay people, and a number of gay people have criticized it.

Nonetheless, any word is pretty much going to mean what the bulk of speakers/writers agree for it to mean by their usage of it. In this case, I think it's the word we are stuck with for a while.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
That doesn't address the fact that it is a hyperbolic and pejorative word, unfortunately. As I said, it implies that there is something wrong with the person, not their stance. I'm not well-versed on these things, but I think the formal term would be an "ad-hominem" attack.

Not sure about that. I don't like the word, but that's down to my personal wish to preserve some sort of fidelity to the root composition of the word. To my mind, it "ought" to mean something like "fear of the same".

I try to avoid personal criticism along these lines where possible, but in some cases, I feel it's valid and valuable to point out the prejudice and special pleading behind the arguments, and hopefully to make the person making them aware of how they're coming across.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Race is 100% a product of birth.
No its not. Its socially defined. It is not a biological category.

I knew someone was going to point that out and almost came up with a long qualification of my original post.

True, race is not a purely biological category. So, yes, my original post is wrong.

But I think my argument still stands in that, to put it very unscientifically and simply, race is significantly more of a biological category than sexual orientation is. There is a difference; it may be complex, but I'm arguing that there is one.

[ 03. August 2012, 22:37: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Race is 100% a product of birth.
No its not. Its socially defined. It is not a biological category.
I knew someone was going to point that out and almost came up with a long qualification of my original post.

True, race is not a purely biological category. So, yes, my original post is wrong.

But I think my argument still stands in that, to put it very unscientifically and simply, race is significantly more of a biological category than sexual orientation is. There is a difference; it may be complex, but I'm arguing that there is one.

Actually I would say sexual orientation is biological though not necessarily genetic. It is extremely hard to change though some people are bisexual and so may choose ignore what society says they should ignore with not too much hardship.

Race is very much cultural. One was considered 'Black' in the US if one had one drop of 'Black' blood though many who looked 'White' often moved away and passed as 'White' (if some recent scholarship is to be trusted, this apparently includes some of Obama's maternal ancestors). Some cultures distinguished people by the amount of 'Black' blood hence terms like colored, octoroon, quadroon, mulatto, etc.. People in Europe talked about the Anglo-Saxon race, the Celtic race, the French race, the German race.

Biologically, genetic diversity within a 'race' is far greater than genetic diversity between 'races' though certain populations do have some differences (e.g., people with ancestry from malarial regions of Africa are more likely to have a gene for sickle cell anemia).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

One of the root issue comes from Martin Luther King's most famous address - re racism as it happens, but it reads straight across of considerations of homophobia. It is "content of character".

There seems to me to be a moral equivalence between judging a person primarily on the basis of the colour of their skin and judging a person primarily on the basis of their sexual orientation. If content of character observations should be colour-blind, then they should also be orientation-blind.

However, where the rubber hits the road is on behaviour. I've argued on other DH threads that I believe the central issue for sexual behaviour is faithfulness. Treating sex as recreational, or other people as sexually useable for reasons of personal gratification, using personal attractiveness manipulatively to get your own way sexually; all of these things fall short of the standard laid down for Christians, which is self-giving, unselfish love. That love which does not insist on its own way. Our desires may cause us to objectify others to our detriment and theirs. That condition, that temptation, is common to all humanity, regardless of race, colour, orientation, culture.

Now I think Christians can debate whether it is possible to apply a "mirror-image" view of same-sex relationships. IMO,the highest scriptural principles of faithfulness and agape love point strongly in the direction of doing just that. Agape love is "the most excellent way" to seek to live. But we had better be consistent. The Christian Church does not have a wonderful record of remembering that, as the stains of antisemitism and racism demonstrate. We'd be wise to recognise the dangers of applying special criteria to a different group, just because they are different.

[ 04. August 2012, 07:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I knew someone was going to point that out and almost came up with a long qualification of my original post.

True, race is not a purely biological category. So, yes, my original post is wrong.

But I think my argument still stands in that, to put it very unscientifically and simply, race is significantly more of a biological category than sexual orientation is. There is a difference; it may be complex, but I'm arguing that there is one.

So you'd say homophobia is more akin to religious bigotry and discrimination? Does that make it "better"?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you'd say homophobia is more akin to religious bigotry and discrimination? Does that make it "better"?

The word "homophobia" is intentionally pejorative, as is the word "bigotry." It is easy to group them in the same category.

Clearly the terms people use are significant.

If we say "I support traditional marriage", or "I support the biblical view", is comparable to racism most people will need to think for a second.

Obvously people are going to object if it starts sounding like "I believe in the Bible" means "I am a bigot."

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

So when people interpreted the Bible to prohibit interracial mixing and marriage, along the lines of: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. was that not a bigoted position? I don't see how hiding behind the Bible makes bigotry any less bigoted.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you'd say homophobia is more akin to religious bigotry and discrimination? Does that make it "better"?
The word "homophobia" is intentionally pejorative, as is the word "bigotry." It is easy to group them in the same category.

Clearly the terms people use are significant.

Well, there's no nice way to argue certain classes of people should have fewer rights or be second class citizens. While describing this accurately may leave a negative impression, it's better than dishonestly euphemizing around an ugly reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If we say "I support traditional marriage", or "I support the biblical view", is comparable to racism most people will need to think for a second.

You are aware that those phrases have historically been used in support of American racism, right? Particularly the controversy over anti-miscegenation laws.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Obvously people are going to object if it starts sounding like "I believe in the Bible" means "I am a bigot."

It sounds like you're objecting to people pointing out when someone uses the phrase "I believe in the Bible" to support bigotry, but not to actually using the Bible to support bigotry. Those priorities seem backwards.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:
Because they are completely different in scale and seriousness. And they are not the same sort of thing at all.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Care to unpack further? How is racism more "serious" than homophobia?

So obviously its hard to imagine how to explain it to you if you don't already see it. There are different kinds and levels of evil. Some bad things are worse than other bad things. (Though of course whichever one you are suffering from at any one time is usually going to seem the worst one at that time)

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
.... to put it very unscientifically and simply, race is significantly more of a biological category than sexual orientation is.

What could possibly be more biological than sex? [Confused]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:
Because they are completely different in scale and seriousness. And they are not the same sort of thing at all.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Care to unpack further? How is racism more "serious" than homophobia?
So obviously its hard to imagine how to explain it to you if you don't already see it. There are different kinds and levels of evil. Some bad things are worse than other bad things. (Though of course whichever one you are suffering from at any one time is usually going to seem the worst one at that time)

That doesn't help clear it up. Again, how is prejudice, violence and hate substantially more evil if based on perceived race than it is on perceived sexual orientation? The intent and actions are the same. These actions are based on an innate quality of the victim. So what makes one more evil than the other?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
That doesn't help clear it up. Again, how is prejudice, violence and hate substantially more evil if based on perceived race than it is on perceived sexual orientation? The intent and actions are the same. These actions are based on an innate quality of the victim. So what makes one more evil than the other?

Clearly you're unfamiliar with the worst kind of discrimination.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I just find it odd that Ken (who I highly respect) who is white and ostensibly heterosexual, is in a position to make a judgment call on either.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't think that is a qualification for discussion. I don't think you have to have experienced a particular evil to have an opinion on it. I would expect to be able to advance an opinion on the relative evils of theft and murder without having experienced either.

For my side, I think Eliab's post sets out clearly why it is not a straightforward question to answer. But one could for instance argue rationally that since one's racial identifiers are harder to hide than one's sexual orientation, that racism is worse. Or that because of the role racism has played in slavery, war and colonialism, that the track record of racism in the world is worse.

But in the end I'm not sure what the point is. It can occasionally be helpful to liken racism and homophobia in making a particular point, that doesn't necessarily imply or require moral equivalence.

[ 04. August 2012, 20:56: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

At the same time, stigmatized racial groups are born into families of the same race and receive support from those families and communities in a way that sexual minorities are not.

But again, I wasn't the one to asserted that one was more evil than the other. Ken did. I see them as equally evil.

quote:
Or that because of the role racism has played in slavery, war and colonialism, that the track record of racism in the world is worse.

Or that this has been more visible in a way that persecution, violence and genocide of sexual minorities isn't.

But again, I think ranking them is a bit absurd.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:
Because they are completely different in scale and seriousness. And they are not the same sort of thing at all.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Care to unpack further? How is racism more "serious" than homophobia?
So obviously its hard to imagine how to explain it to you if you don't already see it. There are different kinds and levels of evil. Some bad things are worse than other bad things. (Though of course whichever one you are suffering from at any one time is usually going to seem the worst one at that time)

Both of them are capable of literally killing people. After that I'm not sure that the level of 'badness' matters that much.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What could possibly be more biological than sex?

Yes, you are quite right, again. [Big Grin]

As Net Spinster rightly pointed out, I have not done a good job in explaining myself here.

I roughly agree with mdijon here:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
For my side, I think Eliab's post sets out clearly why it is not a straightforward question to answer. But one could for instance argue rationally that since one's racial identifiers are harder to hide than one's sexual orientation, that racism is worse. Or that because of the role racism has played in slavery, war and colonialism, that the track record of racism in the world is worse.

But in the end I'm not sure what the point is. It can occasionally be helpful to liken racism and homophobia in making a particular point, that doesn't necessarily imply or require moral equivalence.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But again, I wasn't the one to asserted that one was more evil than the other. Ken did. I see them as equally evil.

If ranking them is absurd then seeing them as equally evil has to also be absurd surely?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I suppose that if you successfully discriminate on the basis of race, you not only get the present generation of that race but also the next generation or so. In any society which has marked income inequalities and then marked differences in the social conventions between different income groups, racism is largely self-perpetuating. But people attracted to the same sex get born to people who are attracted to the other sex across all income and social groups. If you're going to keep homophobia going you've got to make sure that the next generation is fully infected.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But again, I wasn't the one to asserted that one was more evil than the other. Ken did. I see them as equally evil.
If ranking them is absurd then seeing them as equally evil has to also be absurd surely?

The problem is that neither are a single point but rather continuums. Discrimination against people because of their race (racism) can range from not wanting to have a family member marry someone of another race to not allowing them to move into the neighborhood or have certain jobs, to wanting them removed from the country (deport all the blacks back to Africa), to wanting them eradicated (the only good Indian is a dead Indian). Discrimination against people because of their orientation can again range from not wanting one as your next door neighbor all the way up to execution (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., proposed in Uganda [upping the penalty from 14 years in jail to execution for a second offense]).

The major difference is a person at birth and growing up almost always has a support group of their own 'race' around them or fully accepting of them; gays and lesbians are far less likely to have this support group around them.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The major difference is a person at birth and growing up almost always has a support group of their own 'race' around them or fully accepting of them; gays and lesbians are far less likely to have this support group around them.

I agree with the continuum part of your post, but why is this *the* major difference?

I can think of other differences. Visibility, historical precedent, the institution of slavery and colonialism, the existence of ghettos... someone with more imagination could think of others I'm sure. Why is that one difference more important than any other?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

The major difference is a person at birth and growing up almost always has a support group of their own 'race' around them or fully accepting of them; gays and lesbians are far less likely to have this support group around them.

I'm sorry, this does not work. Whilst very young, I lived in a very mixed, non-judgemental (in regards to race) environment. I could see the difference in skin colours, but no one told me it mattered. By nature of our situation, we were a tad isolated. As I grew older, I met people who lived in homogenous neighborhoods. Many of them had the care and support of loving families. From my observations; they had a much worse experience, in regards to racism, than I.
My point is, your example only works for those like me, who essentially lived in a bubble. For those surrounded by the real world, not so much.

How hate should be rated is not in who it is directed towards, but in the level of virulence. Is hate for people based on their perceived race worse than that based on their orientation? No, But.
A reason many people find the comparison of racism and homophobia offensive is results. In history, much more has been suffered by those deemed the wrong race than those by the wrong orientation.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Whether raised in a mixed or single race environment, a person is unlikely to have their immediate family condemn them because of their race (instead they are usually all in the same situation together). Someone who is gay or lesbian may have some or all of their family members condemn them if they come out. That is the difference I'm thinking of.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A reason many people find the comparison of racism and homophobia offensive is results. In history, much more has been suffered by those deemed the wrong race than those by the wrong orientation.

Part of the problem with this is that it's only been since the Stonewall Riots that gays have become anything more than a back-of-the-mind nuisance for most breeders. Once a group of homosexuals stood up and said, "We're not going to take this any more" then the hate and the consequences thereof got ratcheted up, and spread widely across the breeder population. So in essence we in the English-speaking world have had hundreds of years to perpetuate race-based violence; our society(ies) as a whole have only had about 50 to perpetuate orientation-based violence on any kind of scale. Give it time.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

In history, much more has been suffered by those deemed the wrong race than those by the wrong orientation.

If you go by the total number of people known to be affected, perhaps.

If you look at the types and levels of suffering for any particular person, there have been murders and other violence (and threats thereof) against both groups.

One significant difference that makes it difficult to compare is that race is much more obvious to the casual observer than sexual orientation. That makes it difficult to identify the number of victims, especially in historic times. While gays and lesbians can hide their orientation to function in the general public without explicit discrimination, that doesn't mean that they aren't still suffering or being adversely affected by the situation.

You also then have the case of straights who are discriminated against, insulted, beaten, etc. because someone thinks they might be gay, regardless of whether or not they actually are.

My take is that both are evil traits, but the degree of evil depends how a person acts on them. Simply thinking that people are less than fully human because of race or sexual orientation might be a sin worthy of confession, but we all have prejudices of various types. Advocating that they be denied rights or treated as lessor beings could be argued as somewhat less evil than actually discriminating against them in action, as it isn't necessarily illegal. In the same way, perhaps, that threatening them with violence, or encouraging or condoning it, is a step short of a person actually taking part in a beating or lynching.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Originally posted by Carex:

quote:
You also then have the case of straights who are discriminated against, insulted, beaten, etc. because someone thinks they might be gay, regardless of whether or not they actually are.

I'm one of those. I was severely bullied in junior high school because some people thought I was gay (my peers who were actually gay were savvy enough to put up a front--I was prematurely metrosexual). I was insulted, ostracized, beaten, and came close to suicide at times. While I don't want to equate it to the long legacy of racism (I never feared I might be lynched), there are parallels.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It always amazed me that people can make pronouncents like "being discriminated against for being gay" is not as bad as being discriminated against for your race. Since you can be denied service, not sold a home, deported, fired, beaten, raped, castrated or killed for either condition I don't see how you can make a general lattice of equivalence. Let's see; is a socially prominent rich Lesbian of Color more or less oppressed than a poor deaf White crippled hetrosexual male. If it's a numeric "twice as many were oppressed for this" where on earth did these statistics come frommos?

It doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a caused by culture, biology or genetics. In my opinion it probably varies by individual. People should have the right to love who they choose to love even if you think otherwise.
.
The theory that race is immutable is a cultural construct. Irish, Italians and Jews became considered "white" in the United states in the 20th century

Finally the people who lament being called a homophobe because the reasons for their intolerant actions is ever so much more refined than the bigot in the strett. You'll just have to live with that, just as those who had religious reasons why intermarriage between races should be forgiven are called racist. Your self rationalizations are irrelevant to those you seek to deny the same privileges you give yourself. If that makes you feel hurt, too bad.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Whether raised in a mixed or single race environment, a person is unlikely to have their immediate family condemn them because of their race (instead they are usually all in the same situation together). Someone who is gay or lesbian may have some or all of their family members condemn them if they come out. That is the difference I'm thinking of.

It is truly sad that a person may be condemned for their sexual orientation. It is horrible, I am not denying this to any extent. What I am saying is that the support of ones family does not ameliorate the weight of oppression to the extent many think.
What I am not saying is that one is worse than the other.
This is what I said regarding that.

quote:
How hate should be rated is not in who it is directed towards, but in the level of virulence. Is hate for people based on their perceived race worse than that based on their orientation? No

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
as a whole have only had about 50 to perpetuate orientation-based violence on any kind of scale. Give it time.

I cannot, as yet, be so cynical. I sincerely hope you are wrong.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
as a whole have only had about 50 to perpetuate orientation-based violence on any kind of scale. Give it time.
I cannot, as yet, be so cynical. I sincerely hope you are wrong.

As do I. But the resurgence of blistering AND UNASHAMED racial hatred with the election of the black guy as president doesn't give me much hope for our nation.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I don't think folk are really comparing or rating the two - they are showing the anti gay sex brigade just how serious and deeply damaging their views are.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
as a whole have only had about 50 to perpetuate orientation-based violence on any kind of scale. Give it time.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I cannot, as yet, be so cynical. I sincerely hope you are wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As do I. But the resurgence of blistering AND UNASHAMED racial hatred with the election of the black guy as president doesn't give me much hope for our nation.

I wonder what the reaction would have been to a gay president. Probably the same, I guess?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder what the reaction would have been to a gay president. Probably the same, I guess?

If there's one bit of invective you can throw at a gay president that you can't throw at a black president, it's that wonderful phrase: lifestyle choice.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder what the reaction would have been to a gay president. Probably the same, I guess?
If there's one bit of invective you can throw at a gay president that you can't throw at a black president, it's that wonderful phrase: lifestyle choice.

Which is why, in a sense, anti-gay prejudice could reasonably be considered worse than racism. If you're black, however bad the racism gets, you'd never start to question whether you were really black. And you'd still have a safe haven among your family, who would naturally accept and support you.

But being gay, there's no only nowhere to safely turn for unconditional support, but it's something you could conceivably attempt to conceal. If your orientation is likely to cause problems, whether it really would or not, it's hardly surprising if people continue to hide it and live in fear. That combination of no support and constant deceit and vigilance is a recipe for disaster, especially in young people.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

You've never come across someone being pilloried for not being black enough? Called an uncle Tom or said to be showing separatist tendencies? Overly sensitive regarding race if they allege racism?

There are plenty of choices to be made in terms of racial identity, and plenty of ways for them to stoke paranoia.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

That's true. I was thinking of the bare facts of being black/white/whatever, and hadn't considered associated questions of identity. I'd have thought that the identity issues you mention were slightly different from simple racism, but that's probably my privilege talking.

As a straight white male, it's impossible for me to realise what any of this feels like, and how it affects your life. I can attempt to understand it intellectually, but I can never really grok it. Please take my comments in that light. I want to help, but I realise I may be betraying ignorance or unintentional thoughtlessness.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Not at all, discussion is discussion and I saw nothing thoughtless in your contribution at all. I should have tried for a more matter-of-fact-contributing tone above, the "you've never come across" can be read as confrontational.

It seems to me that racism is never simple, since it is fundamentally about a socially constructed identity, where race is a perception that depends mostly on skin colour, but also on other features of appearance, behaviour, and self-identification.

Hence I argue there is no racism that does not attack identity.

Sadly many black teenagers find that their parents expectations and responses to racism don't match their need for support. The older generation is much more likely to advise you to put up with it and not make a fuss, particularly if they are first generation immigrants.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me that racism is never simple, since it is fundamentally about a socially constructed identity, where race is a perception that depends mostly on skin colour, but also on other features of appearance, behaviour, and self-identification.

I think this is the crux of it. A useful reminder, as well, that domestic disapproval and refusal to accept who you are isn't limited to matters of sexuality.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Where being a victim of racism is 'less' difficult
' than being a victim of homophobia is in the churches.

Although there was a time when things were different, churches say that racism is a sin and any minister preaching racism would be removed - eventually. Whereas anyone preaching homophobia is regarded as 'orthodox'.

Gay people are urged to repent and change who they are in their core identity. Black people are told that they are loved by God just as much as anyone else.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It just isn't true that racism has been dealt with in the church. I frequently encounter people with stereotypical views of Africans in church. Of course they don't see themselves as racist, just as homophobes don't usually see themselves as homophobic.

But I don't want to get drawn into the game of claiming that one is worse than the other. I and a number of other posters above have described the poor rationale for doing that.

There is also a terrible dynamic of appearing to minimize the experience another is going through in comparing suffering, and it's a very unhelpful dynamic.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0